sustainability-12-05483-v2 (1).pdf

sustainability
Commentary
Regenerative—The New Sustainable?
Leah V. Gibbons 1,2,3
1 Sustainable and Regenerative Living Department, Maharishi International University, Fairfield,
IA 52557, USA; lgibbons@miu.edu
2 Regenerative Living Institute, Mebane, NC 27302, USA
3 Regenerative Living Institute, Fairfield, IA 52556, USA
Received: 12 June 2020; Accepted: 6 July 2020; Published: 7 July 2020

Abstract: Over time, sustainability paradigms have evolved from meeting human needs throughout
time to improving human wellbeing and the viability of ecological systems. Regenerative sustainability
(RS), the next wave of sustainability, includes and transcends these goals, aiming for thriving living
systems in which whole-system health and wellbeing increase continually. A key difference between
sustainability paradigms is the thinking underlying them, with regenerative sustainability based on
a holistic worldview and paradigm, integrating recent understandings from science and practice,
different ways of knowing, and inner and outer dimensions of sustainability necessary for systemic
transformation. RS, practiced through regenerative development and design for over 50 years,
aligns human consciousness and actions with living systems principles. When this alignment
occurs, sustainable development goals are elevated to become regenerative development goals, with
living systems principles and characteristics guiding the development of regenerative indicators and
strategies made specific to a place through transformational co-creative processes. We should aim
for regenerative sustainability because it offers holistic approaches based on how thriving living
systems function, addresses the root causes of (un)sustainability, and is inherently more inspiring
and motivational. Advancing regenerative sustainability will require fundamental shifts supported
by more awareness and education, theoretical and practical development, leadership, empowering
communities, and integrating spirituality.
Keywords: regenerative development; sustainable development; sustainable development goals;
sustainable community development; complex adaptive systems; regenerative design
1. Introduction
Sustainability, as a science, practice, and movement, has made significant intellectual progress
beyond unfettered environmental destruction for the sake of economic growth. The field has expanded
and adapted over time as more voices have contributed to theory and practice. To date, however, the
sustainability field largely has not succeeded in shifting social–ecological system trajectories toward
sustainability [1]. Environmental and social degradation continue at increasing rates to the extent
that “we are in a state of planetary emergency” [2,3]. A focus on meeting minimally acceptable levels
of human wellbeing within negotiated environmental limits, incremental change, and addressing
symptoms rather than causes has effectively crippled the field from achieving not only net-neutral states
but the much loftier aims of thriving and flourishing living systems [4–6]. On this current trajectory,
it is questionable whether humanity can achieve sustainability, with some authors advocating for
discussions about postsustainability scenarios [7–9].
At this time of urgent need to transform destructive patterns of thinking and being into patterns
that nourish all life, a new, more holistic paradigm based on a fundamentally different worldview for
the sustainability field is in order [4,10]. There is a growing recognition that (1) human efforts must be
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5483; doi:10.3390/su12135483 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5483 2 of 19
aligned with life’s principles, (2) the worldviews and paradigms at the root of (un)sustainability need
to be addressed directly, (3) sustainability’s goals can and should transcend narrow anthropocentrically
focused aims to become more holistic, inspiring, ambitious, and motivational [1,10–13]. Regenerative
sustainability could provide the necessary worldview, paradigm, focus, aims, and processes for
transformational change in the sustainability field and in society.
This article is divided into four parts. Section 2 briefly describes different sustainability
paradigms—conventional, contemporary, and regenerative—that have emerged, their context, and their
main characteristics. Regenerative sustainability is considered as the next wave of the sustainability
field, integrating necessary realms and elevating its paradigms, aims, and methodologies to those
that support thriving whole living systems. The need to address the inner and outer realms of
sustainability for transformational change and their integration through regenerative sustainability is
discussed. Section 3 details the regenerative sustainability praxis through regenerative development
and design, followed by the potential to elevate sustainable development goals to more holistic
regenerative development goals in Section 4. Concluding remarks in Section 5 include suggestions for
expanding regenerative sustainability theory and practice, as well as an invitation for sustainability
scholars, practitioners, and community members to be change agents in the shift from sustainability
to thrivability.
2. Sustainability Paradigms
2.1. Conventional Sustainability
Since the 17th century, the term “sustainability” has been used to describe conserving
environmental resources for human benefit, popularly articulated in the Brundtland Report as
meeting current and future human needs within environmental limits [14,15]. This “conventional
sustainability” recognizes that unfettered use/destruction of environmental resources is detrimental
for continued human existence. In this conceptualization, the focus is anthropocentric and largely on
how to enable continued economic development within a context of finite resources [4,15]. To do so,
incremental change at shallow levels within existing unsustainable systems is the goal [16–18]. The aims
include efficiency, doing less harm and mitigating damage to the environment, minimally acceptable
levels of human wellbeing, managing nature and people, economic growth, and developing and
implementing technological advances [4]. The descriptive–analytical approach to research dominates,
as does a belief that almost everything is knowable [4,19,20]. A mechanistic, reductionistic worldview
that sees humans and the rest of life as separate, with environmental resources in service of human
consumption, underlies conventional sustainability. Examples of conventional sustainability in action
include best management practices, more efficient technology, green building, economically driven
environmental regulations, and economic incentives [4,21].
While conventional sustainability moved us beyond unfettered destruction of the environment,
it has been criticized for being too unspecific in its definition, unambitious in its aims, and not including
necessary components for sustainability [4,6,13,21,22]. Indeed, conventional sustainability can actually
undermine sustainability efforts by creating the illusion that beneficial change has occurred when,
in fact, none has or the change has actually been harmful (e.g., the efficiency paradox, LEED (Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design) certification resulting in larger buildings that consume more
energy, continued increase that is near or surpasses planetary limits and tipping points) [3,23].
2.2. Contemporary Sustainability
“Contemporary sustainability” has developed largely since 1999, with the birth of sustainability
science—the science of sustainable development—as an academic discipline [24]. Contemporary
sustainability advances conventional sustainability by adding considerations of ecosystem viability,
social justice, social–ecological and social–ecological–technical systems, satisfying livelihoods, and
normativity [19,25]. The focus is still anthropocentric, aiming for human wellbeing now and in

the future, within limits, through “solving” complex “problems” that are value-laden, contested,
and locally specific. Still dominated by the descriptive–analytical mode of inquiry, contemporary
sustainability research also includes concepts of transition, transformation, leverage points, process,
transdisciplinarity, multiscale-coupled human–nature systems, ecosystem services, and use-inspired
knowledge generation [20,24–30]. Concepts of tradeoffs, resilience, risk and vulnerability, trajectories,
reducing harm, and equity dominate [28,31].
Contemporary sustainability is an improvement upon conventional sustainability, yet it is still
primarily anthropocentrically focused and an outgrowth of a mechanistic worldview. While it better
incorporates ecological concepts such as complex adaptive systems [32], it still tends to work with
fragmented parts of systems rather than whole complex systems—working transdisciplinarily and
integrating disciplines have proven to be challenging [10]. Contemporary sustainability mostly
focuses on symptoms rather than causes of unsustainability—in other words, shallow leverage
points in systems, such as technological, policy, and economic changes—and supports the continued
existence of unsustainable systems and thought patterns (e.g., continued economic growth, managing
environmental resources for human consumption, efficiency) [4,10,14,33,34]. In practice and even
academia, contemporary sustainability still gets caught in traps of greenwashing, efficiency, relying on
technological improvements, and unintentionally fostering greater unsustainability [4,23,35]. Examples
of contemporary sustainability praxis include sustainable development goals, ecodistricts, and STAR
(Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating) Communities [36–38].
While some scholars argue that contemporary sustainability science is nearing maturity, shifting
from quantitative growth to qualitative development [26], others critique it, and sustainable
development, as a paradigm in crisis, is failing to achieve its aims and potentially on a pathway
toward collapse [10,39,40]. Despite the growth of sustainability in practice and as a scientific field,
unsustainability is increasing at shocking and disastrous rates on a global scale and many local
scales [2,3,10,33]. An inability to move beyond a foundation in a mechanistic worldview and
reductionistic paradigm perpetuates problematic issues of fragmentation and tradeoffs, a focus on
shallow and weak leverage points, and a reliance on technological fixes and efficiency, which render
the sustainability field unable to shift societal trajectories to ones that support not only sustainability
but loftier aims, such as the flourishing of all life [4,10,33,39,40]. Several sustainability scholars and
practitioners assert that it is time for the field to adopt a holistic worldview and paradigm that integrates
and synergizes all aspects of sustainability if we are ever to achieve it [4,10,11,13,33].
2.3. Regenerative Sustainability
“Regenerative sustainability” has been called the next wave of sustainability [41,42], and
it represents a necessary worldview and paradigm shift for sustainability [4,10,18]. It includes
and transcends conventional and contemporary sustainability, adopting a holistic worldview
(Figure 1) [34,43]. A holistic worldview, rather than being fixed, fosters the ability to integrate and
transcend paradigms, which is the deepest leverage point in systems and, thus, absolutely necessary
for sustainability [4,18,44,45]. Regenerative sustainability sees humans and the rest of life as one
autopoietic system in which developmental change processes manifest the unique essence and potential
of each place or community. Regenerative sustainability’s aspirational aim is to manifest thriving and
flourishing living systems (i.e., complex adaptive systems) in the fully integrated individual-to-global
system. It calls for humans to live in conscious alignment with living systems principles of wholeness,
change, and relationship, as nature does [4]. The belief that this is possible and a logical, necessary, and
desirable aim is based on recent scientific understandings in ecology, quantum physics, systems theory,
developmental change theory, psychology, neuroscience, design, planning, and sustainability, as well
as more ancient ways of knowing and being in the world (i.e., indigenous knowledge and practices,
eastern spiritual traditions, and philosophies) [4,34].

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Figure 1. Sustainability paradigms. Different sustainability paradigms have developed through time,
each including and transcending the previous. Conventional and contemporary sustainability are
based on a mechanistic worldview and are largely anthropocentrically focused. Contemporary
sustainability advances conventional sustainability by including concepts such as justice, complex
adaptive systems, and transdisciplinarity. Regenerative sustainability, the next wave of sustainability,
is based on a holistic worldview and aims for thriving whole living systems. It integrates inner and
outer realms of sustainability and focuses on shifting deep leverage points in systems for
transformational change across scales.
Critically, regenerative sustainability focuses on transforming the worldviews, paradigms, and
thinking underlying the manifested reality and, thus, (un)sustainability. The inhabitants of a place or
community, as well as the stakeholders who cocreate it, ultimately determine whether it is
(un)sustainable or (not)thriving. Places are not static but are constantly changing. Developing
capacities in the human and more-than-human components of communities to change in ways that
continually manifest higher levels of health and wellbeing (i.e., manifested potential) and thus
regenerate, rather than degenerate, is necessary for thrivability [17,46]. These capacities include
adaptation, self-organization, and evolution, as well as making decisions about infrastructure, land
use, governance, food systems, cultural practices, and lifestyles that support whole-system health
[47]. The thinking underlying these decisions must shift for the rest of the system’s properties to shift
towards thrivability [4,16,18]. Thus, instead of seeing “problems” and “solutions” in the world,
regenerative sustainability sees living systems as existing in transitory states along a continuum of
health and complexity.
Regenerative sustainability also considers how contexts and environments influence
worldviews, paradigms, and behaviors. In other words, it intentionally addresses and integrates both
the inner and outer dimensions necessary for transformational change toward thriving living systems
and their relationships (see Section 2.4—inner sustainability, outer sustainability), while conventional
and contemporary sustainability fall short [1,4,34]. It might seem more difficult to implement than
conventional and contemporary sustainability due to its aspirational aims, which focus on shifting
worldviews and paradigms and the holistic living systems approach, yet it is the only approach thus
Figure 1. Sustainability paradigms. Different sustainability paradigms have developed through time,
each including and transcending the previous. Conventional and contemporary sustainability are based
on a mechanistic worldview and are largely anthropocentrically focused. Contemporary sustainability
advances conventional sustainability by including concepts such as justice, complex adaptive systems,
and transdisciplinarity. Regenerative sustainability, the next wave of sustainability, is based on a
holistic worldview and aims for thriving whole living systems. It integrates inner and outer realms
of sustainability and focuses on shifting deep leverage points in systems for transformational change
across scales.
Critically, regenerative sustainability focuses on transforming the worldviews, paradigms, and
thinking underlying the manifested reality and, thus, (un)sustainability. The inhabitants of a place
or community, as well as the stakeholders who cocreate it, ultimately determine whether it is
(un)sustainable or (not)thriving. Places are not static but are constantly changing. Developing
capacities in the human and more-than-human components of communities to change in ways
that continually manifest higher levels of health and wellbeing (i.e., manifested potential) and thus
regenerate, rather than degenerate, is necessary for thrivability [17,46]. These capacities include
adaptation, self-organization, and evolution, as well as making decisions about infrastructure, land
use, governance, food systems, cultural practices, and lifestyles that support whole-system health [47].
The thinking underlying these decisions must shift for the rest of the system’s properties to shift
towards thrivability [4,16,18]. Thus, instead of seeing “problems” and “solutions” in the world,
regenerative sustainability sees living systems as existing in transitory states along a continuum of
health and complexity.
Regenerative sustainability also considers how contexts and environments influence worldviews,
paradigms, and behaviors. In other words, it intentionally addresses and integrates both the inner
and outer dimensions necessary for transformational change toward thriving living systems and
their relationships (see Section 2.4—inner sustainability, outer sustainability), while conventional
and contemporary sustainability fall short [1,4,34]. It might seem more difficult to implement than
conventional and contemporary sustainability due to its aspirational aims, which focus on shifting

worldviews and paradigms and the holistic living systems approach, yet it is the only approach thus far
to integrate these necessary aspects of sustainability [1,11,16,21]. Additionally, recent scientific research
and decades of regenerative sustainability practitioner data suggest that regenerative approaches
are inherently more inspiring and motivational than conventional or contemporary approaches and
that they are effective at achieving their aims [7,13,48–52]. Regenerative sustainability has been
operationalized in practices such as regenerative development, regenerative community development,
and several regenerative design technologies. These are discussed in more detail in Section 3 below.
2.4. Inner Sustainability, Outer Sustainability
There is a growing awareness in the sustainability field that addressing inner realms—i.e., inner
sustainability—is essential for any kind of lasting change in the outer realms—i.e., outer sustainability.
Inner sustainability refers to aspects of existence that are unobservable—worldviews, paradigms and
the ability to transcend them, beliefs, values, thoughts, emotions, desires, identities, and spirituality.
Outer sustainability includes the observable aspects of existence that arise from inner aspects—policies,
governance structures, economic markets, the built environment, and ecosystems (i.e., coupled
human–environment systems) [1,16,53]. Several scholars, practitioners, and activists agree that the
fundamental reason sustainability efforts have failed to produce systemic change is that the inner
dimensions of sustainability are largely ignored [1,4,11,16,54,55]. Moreover, sustainability efforts may
be subverted by a myopic focus on outer dimensions [1,16,53].
Inner dimensions of existence are the root of (un)sustainability—the outer reflects the
inner [1,16,34,53,56–59]. The inner aspects of sustainability correspond to the deepest leverage
points in systems, the aspects that must change for lasting transformational change in the entire system
to occur [18]. While the influence of environments/context on thinking, values, and behaviors can be
quite powerful [22,60], influence and causation are stronger and more persistent in the inner-to-outer
dynamic [61]. Ultimately, an integration of these two realms, consciously developing inner realms to
manifest desired outer realms and vice-versa, is necessary for sustainability [1,11,22,53,59].
Individual, as well as collective expressions of inner sustainability, must be cultivated [59]. At the
individual level, experiences and actions such as compassion, empathy, gratitude, deep care and
understanding, love, generosity, altruism, service, unity consciousness, creativity, reflexivity, and
ability to shift paradigms are critical for sustainability [1,16,53,60,62]. Individual inner sustainability
may be assessed via empirical observation of behaviors coupled with other social science methods,
such as surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and participant observation [11,44]. At the collective
level, inclusivity, diversity, reflexivity, process-orientation, social care, and care for nature and the
like are important [44,63]. Collective inner sustainability may be manifested as outer sustainability
and thus assessed in forms such as deeply participatory processes and governance; social services;
nature-based and/or socially-focused rituals, ceremonies, and celebrations; sustainable education;
consciousness-based practices; policies supporting the sovereignty of communities, nature, and
diversity. These experiences, actions, and manifestations emerge from and reinforce a holistic worldview
and paradigm that sees all of existence as interbeing, as part of an interconnected whole [11,44].
3. Regenerative Sustainability Praxis
While the concept of regenerative sustainability has been articulated relatively recently [4],
its principles have been applied in contemporary culture for over 60 years in practices such as
regenerative development [13], ecological and regenerative design [64,65], ecological planning [66],
regenerative agriculture [67], regenerative capitalism [68], and community development [11,69,70].
These fields offer insight into what is possible when a holistic worldview and paradigm are adopted, as
well as opportunities to expand and evolve existing practices that are, in some cases, well-developed.

3.1. Regenerative Development
Regenerative development (RD) is a place-based development and design methodology that grows
the capabilities necessary for living systems to increase in complexity, diversity, capacity to support all
life, and the potential to change to provide future options (i.e., health and wellbeing) [47]. While RD
has been developed and used in practice for more than 20 years, it has attracted attention in theoretical
outlets recently [4,17,34,71,72]. Scholars have identified RD as tapping into the human potential
to reconnect aspirations and activities with living systems principles in coevolutionary salutogenic
relationships. Based on living systems theory, RD is one of the few frameworks in sustainability to
integrate inner and outer sustainability with living systems principles. Its foundation of systemic
changes includes the power to transcend paradigms, the mindset out of which the system arises,
the aims of the system, and the capacity of the system to self-organize. This then leads to positive
feedbacks between inner and outer worlds, and increasingly higher states of health, wellbeing, and
vitality are achieved for the entire system [11,13,73].
In RD, cocreative processes and practices develop mutualistic human–human and human–nature
relationships that manifest the unique character and essence of a place [11,46,63]. For example,
RD deeply and continuously engages inhabitants of a place in understanding its dynamics and
its potential for health and wellbeing [71]. It then applies specific design technologies (see
Section 3.3—regenerative design) to manifest potential by, again, deeply and cocreatively involving
inhabitants in an iterative, ongoing process. RD processes and practices lead to deep care, will, and
holistic thinking and acting, and a cascade of transformational change toward thriving living systems
is created in the focal system, as well as across scales, developing individuals, the focal system, and the
larger systems of which the focal system is a part [63,73]. Current RD frameworks include regenerative
community development [11] (see Section 3.2—regenerative community development), Regenesis
Group’s approach [13], and the LENSES (Living Environments in Natural, Social, and Economic
Systems) framework from CLEAR (Center for Living Environments and Regeneration) Abundance [74].
3.2. Regenerative Community Development
Regenerative community development (RCD) builds on existing RD approaches and enhances
them to work with the structure of living systems as nested and networked communities of communities
(i.e., complex adaptive systems) [11,75,76]. Communities are conceptualized as the biotic and
abiotic components of directly interacting complex webs of life and the physical–metaphysical–social
relationships amongst components [11,75–77]. This is in contrast to “neighborhood,” which typically
indicates a geographically bounded area in a human-dominated system. Communities are the
building blocks of nature and societies—neighborhoods, cities, landscapes, watersheds, and bioregions.
Working with the community structure of living systems can stimulate regeneration across and up
all scales [76,78]. For example, community action at the neighborhood level can stimulate change at
the city level, which can stimulate change at the landscape and bioregional level, and so on. As such,
research and action at the community level is key to sustainability and regeneration and should be
holistic in nature [11,22,77,79].
RCD’s holistic approach integrates ecological and sociocultural dimensions of existence, process
and product domains of development and design efforts, and inner and outer dimensions of
sustainability, as well as their spatial and temporal dynamics. It integrates science, practice, and
different ways of knowing and perceiving. Its processes and tools help inhabitants better understand
life-giving flows (e.g., water, food, energy, organisms, information) through their community and
the communities of which they are a part of, as well as their relationships and the emergence that
occurs. It translates living systems principles and characteristics into general indicators and strategies
for whole-system health and regeneration that are then made specific to a place through ongoing
cocreative processes. These processes help the inhabitants and stakeholders of a place to integrate
ecological and sociocultural dimensions of living systems (i.e., human–nature interactions), as well
as development and design processes (e.g., participatory processes in urban design and landscape

architecture) and products (e.g., ecological urban infrastructure, city plans and codes, buildings, and
water systems) that are necessarily involved in community development, thus, guiding community
development in space and time in an ontological feedback loop [11]. In short, RCD seeks to develop
regenerative cultures that form the matrix out of which all aspects of regenerative being, regenerative
living, and regenerative whole living systems arise [11,42,80].
RCD holds promise for sustainable and regenerative development globally, given its potential
to stimulate transformation and regenerative cultures across scales. It is discussed in more detail
below (see Section 4—shifting from sustainable development goals to regenerative development goals).
Of particular interest are the thousands of intentional communities called ecovillages around the
world that have been developing in ecologically and socially just ways for over 50 years. Although
ecovillages most often fall into the category of regenerative design, many are attempting to positively
shift the larger communities of which they are a part and create large-scale social change. They are
living laboratories that provide, collectively, hundreds of years of data on and invaluable insight into
sustainable and regenerative living [69,70,81]. The United Nations recognizes ecovillages as the best
strategy for manifesting sustainable development goals [82]. By more intentionally implementing RCD,
ecovillages could provide a springboard for expanding community development efforts to become
regenerative and be implemented on larger scales.
3.3. Regenerative Design
While regenerative development provides the framework to identify life-giving patterns and
actions in a living system, regenerative design is an integral part of the process of giving form to patterns
and actions [46]. Regenerative design technologies in the built environment include regenerative
design [64], ecological design and planning [65], biophilic design [83], the Living Building and Living
Community Challenges [84], biomimicry [85], permaculture [86], and ecovillages [69,70]. Regenerative
design in the built environment largely focuses on facilitating healthy processes and flows within
one focal scale of a system without catalyzing change at larger scales [34]. As part of regenerative
development processes, however, regenerative design can develop the necessary capabilities for
regeneration over time and across scales. For example, the design and client teams can become a
collaborative enterprise for learning about how integrated human and more-than-human systems
can coevolve towards the long-term health of a place, and the design process can develop holistic
thinking and deep care and will [46,73]. Regenerative design also includes social systems such as food,
economic, and governance systems, discussed next.
3.4. Regenerative Food Systems and Agriculture
Regenerative food systems aim to increase the health and wellbeing of whole living systems from
the scale of individuals to agroecosystems to bioregions, using food as a powerful nodal leverage
point—a point in a system where changes catalyze whole system transformation [18,67,73]. Relocalizing
and regenerating foodsheds through transformative processes of social and ecological integration
are primary goals. Policies that support food democracy and food sovereignty are important, as are
regenerative economic and transportation systems. Shifting consumer and community worldviews
to manifest regenerative behaviors, values, and health is essential. Regenerative food systems also
include elevating indigenous food systems and creating a regenerative culture around food [87,88].
Regenerative agriculture is a well-developed aspect of regenerative food systems. It explicitly
focuses on creating reciprocal relationships between ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual
components in social–ecological communities to grow all forms of capital while expressing the essence of
each person, farm, and place [89,90]. Regenerative agriculture practices increase soil fertility and health,
increase biodiversity, improve watersheds, capture carbon, increase resilience, increase yields with
fewer inputs, build community, support local economies, and more. Strategies include no-till farming
and pasture cropping, organic annual and perennial crops, silvopasture, agroforestry, using compost
and biochar, holistically managed grazing and animal integration, community engagement, fair wages,

and sometimes, cooperative ownership [67,91]. Through training, implementation of regenerative
practices, social interactions, and positive feedback mechanisms, consciousness, paradigms, and
worldviews can shift to being holistic [67].
3.5. Regenerative Capitalism
Regenerative capitalism recognizes that the current capitalistic system, based on increasing
exploitation and destruction of natural and social resources, cannot continue [92]. It proposes that
abundance and prosperity result from aligning economic systems with living systems principles.
It is place-based and functions to increase the health and wellbeing of integrated local-to-global
communities. Wealth is defined holistically in terms of the wellbeing of the whole, with multiple types
of capital—social, human, financial, natural, manufactured—considered. Adaptability (i.e., innovation)
is imperative to be of value to larger communities and to increase their health and wellbeing as parts
of dynamic living systems. Diverse collaboration facilitates healthy flows and exchanges of money,
information, materials, and resources [68].
3.6. Regenerative Governance
Sociocracy and holacracy are systems of regenerative governance systems based on living systems
principles that enable purpose-alignment, resilience, and prosperity in organizations. Key living
systems characteristics incorporated include modularity, subsidiarity, nestedness, and feedback.
This structure allows for information flow, transparency, adaptability, innovation, effectiveness, and
accountability within organizations. Sociocracy and holacracy distribute authority and develop
individuals as much as the organization as a whole and the communities they serve [93,94].
4. Shifting from Sustainable Development Goals to Regenerative Development Goals
Development goals can support manifesting regenerative sustainability by being more holistic,
growing self-organizing capacities in living systems across scales, integrating inner and outer
sustainability, and offering a more inspiring aim of thriving communities. This entails a shift
from sustainable development goals (SDGs) to regenerative development goals (RDGs). While SDGs
offer targets, aims, and guidelines for contemporary sustainability, they do not support holistic thriving
living systems. Additionally, they have been difficult to integrate synergistically, creating tradeoffs that
move communities farther away from sustainability [39,40]. RDGs, on the other hand, integratively
and synergistically guide human thinking and action to more fully align with life’s principles and to
manifest thriving communities from the scale of individuals to the entire earth system [11,47]. Life’s
principles include wholeness, change, relationship, self-organization, emergence, and more (see Table 1
“Regenerative Development Principles” and “Core Characteristics of Regenerative Living Systems”)
Developing the characteristics (i.e., capacities) of regenerative living systems is the primary
aim of RDGs. As discussed above, to manifest those characteristics, communities cocreate and
coimplement place-based indicators and strategies to guide thinking and action by following general
indicators and strategies for regenerative living systems and regenerative development principles,
integrating ecological and sociocultural dimensions of living systems and process and product domains
of development and design endeavors across scales of space and time (Table 1). Additionally, different
ways of knowing and perceiving, as well as quantitative and qualitative data, are integrated. Developing
the abilities of inhabitants and stakeholders of a place to make these integrations and synergistically
integrating RDGs (i.e., thinking systemically) are the main aims. When these integrations occur,
self-organization, emergence, and thrivability result [11,12].

Table 1. Regenerative development principles, core characteristics of regenerative living systems, and regenerative development indicators and strategies guide
regenerative development efforts and goals. They are integrated across ecological and sociocultural dimensions of living systems, as well as process and product
domains of development and design efforts. Empty boxes are meant to be populated with explanations or narratives that include interconnections throughout the tool,
qualitative and quantitative data, and other relevant information, rather than being simple checkmarks. See Gibbons et al. (2020) [47] and Gibbons (2020) [11] for
detailed information about the creation and applications of this tool.
Regenerative Development (RD) Principles
These principles guide thinking and action. Check all thinking and actions against RD Principles.
Meta-Principle Principle
Dimensions Domains
Ecological Sociocultural Process Product
Wholeness
Works in whole systems (not fragments)
Shifts thinking towards holistic worldview
Change
Manifests potential in a place (potential- focused, not problem-focused)
Grows regenerative capacity (in human and more-than-human
components of living systems—viability, vitality, evolutionary capacity)
Relationships
Value-adding:
Contributes to healthier functioning/vitality of two next higher scales
Mutualisms/Guilds:
Creates reciprocal relationships that contribute to healthier, more
vital whole
Nodal leverage points:
Identifies and shifts systemic leverage points to increase health
and wellbeing
Core Characteristics of Regenerative Living Systems
Regenerative living systems have these characteristics.
Category Characteristic
Dimensions Domains
Traits
Diversity (species, genetic, ecosystem, landscape, functional,
response, social)
Multifunctionality
Redundancy
Flexibility
Adaptability

Table 1. Cont.
Dynamic Networks
Connectedness
Exchanges/flows (materials, information, energy)
Nodes
Across-scale linkages
Tight feedbacks
Interdependence
Reciprocity
Structure
Modularity
Holarchies (heterarchies, nestedness)
Being of value to larger systems
Uniquely human qualities
Long-term thinking
Reflection, learning
Holistic/systems thinking and acting
Collaboration
Responsibility
Regenerative Development Indicators
Core characteristics enable the following observable features that may be used as general indicators, made specific to place.
Category Indicator
Dimensions Domains
Dynamics
Self-organization
Adaptation
Transformation (cascading change upscale to qualitatively
different states)
Emergence (new levels of order, complexity, organization)
Increasing complexity
Cycles (energy, nutrients, water)—local, across scales
Resilience

Table 1. Cont.
Structure
Local-scale exchanges (e.g., local economies, rainwater infiltration)
Decentralization
Self-sufficiency
All levels of work present: operate, maintain, improve, regenerate
Relationships
Networking/guilding
Positive reciprocity
Increase in capitals (natural, social, human, financial, built)
Adding value upscale (enabling larger scales to manifest their potential)
Worldviews
Sacred view of all life
Humans as producers, not consumers
Compassion
Empathy
Responsibility
Positive reciprocity
Meaningful existence in relationship to place
Affects
Increasing understanding of place
Willingness to change
Deep care, will, action
Strong sense of place, belonging
Place-based/place-specific actions
Collaboration/cocreation
Including multiple subjective and objective points of view
Innovation

Table 1. Cont.
Regenerative Development Strategies
General ways to manifest indicators, core characteristics, and RD principles that are made specific to place.
Category Strategies
Dimensions Domains
Guiding Consciousness
Holistic approaches
Design of systems (not single elements or subsystems)
Developmental processes, goals, outcomes
Metadesign (design that shifts worldviews)
Ecological design, integrated ecologies
Conscious and intentional actions
Implementing indigenous knowledge and practices
Actions
Integrating multiple perspectives
Cocreativity
Deep participation and dialogue
Ongoing reflective community dialogue, social learning
Monitoring, adapting, evolving; adaptive management
Collaboration in community and with surrounding communities
Citizen science
Transdisciplinary scientific research
Designed experiments, adaptive design
Co-production

Table 1. Cont.
Community-Building
(Culture)
Rituals, celebrations based around healthy living system functioning
(especially nature- and place-based)
Equity (social and ecological/ environmental)
Inclusivity, diversity
Local economies
Community contributions: time/efforts/material goods
Satisfying/purposeful livelihoods
Guilds
Increasing human health, wellbeing, happiness
Governance
Full-cost accounting
Precautionary principle
Polycentric governance, subsidiarity
Transparency
Accountability
Long-term and short-term view
Short-term functional goals
Long-term developmental goals
Health
Increasing human health, wellbeing, happiness
Increasing ecological health

Unlike SDGs, RDGs include process, which is equally or even more important than products or
outcomes [1,11,62]. It is the process of deeply and cocreatively engaging with a place in an ongoing
and reflexive way that develops inner and outer sustainability. Regenerative processes develop an
understanding in the inhabitants of a place of how a community can or does function regeneratively
and the holistic thinking and worldview necessary to manifest thriving communities in perpetuity.
Furthermore, development processes are inclusive, diverse, collaborative, and iterative, thus enabling
regeneration. Inner sustainability, then, supports outer sustainability, which includes physical and
social structures and organization, and an ontological feedback loop supporting thriving living systems
is created [1,11,46,62].
The community scale is a key focal scale for sustainability efforts [11,77,79,95–98]. Supporting
communities in cocreating and moving toward RDGs can be powerfully transformative since it is a scale
at which people can deeply connect to a place and each other, thus enabling worldviews and actions
to shift to being holistic and regenerative, and processes and outcomes to shift to being regenerative
and thriving [47]. Since global sustainability and regeneration will take concerted efforts at all scales,
the process of cocreating RDGs at the community scale should be nested and networked across scales
in space and time, vertically and horizontally, following nature’s organization [76,99]. Community
efforts at similar scales in geographic regions should be linked, and they should be nested within
processes at larger scales, such as cities and regions. Global-level RDGs could provide parameters for
lower-scale (e.g., bioregion, city, neighborhood) RDGs that drive much of the system as a whole and
catalyze change upscale [76]. Feedback loops throughout systems provide opportunities for continual
adaptation. In this way, transformational change toward thrivability can cascade across scales through
regenerative landscape development [34,76].
SDGs need not be abandoned altogether. They may be part of an integrated regenerative
development process. As RDGs are developed and implemented, sustainability and SDGs could
provide important intermediate steps to help systems shift from degenerative and unsustainable to
regenerative and thriving. To do so, it is crucial to integrate and synergize SDGs to increase their
beneficial systemic outcomes. In many instances, moving toward some SDGs results in moving away
from others, with unintentional tradeoffs created [39]. By working toward a synergistic achievement
of SDGs within the context of transitioning to RDGs, more progress toward cocreating thriving
living systems may be made. It will be imperative to critically reflect on which SDGs may actually
move systems farther away from regeneration and alter them to support regenerative transitions.
For example, rather than aiming for economic growth (SDG 8), which can actually result in tradeoffs
with other SDGs (e.g., SDG 6—Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 14—Life Below Water, and SDG
15—Life on Land), aiming to develop financial and other (e.g., food, materials, information) flows that
support meaningful and purposeful contributions to family, community, society, and self, while at the
same time improving ecosystems, would be a more appropriate goal. A more equitable distribution of
wealth and capital might also be part of this goal. In this conceptualization, increasing financial capital
and employment as means is not as important as increasing the real objectives that financial capital
and employment are meant to support—increasing human and environmental wellbeing—in a way
that supports the continued development of systemic capacities for wellbeing.
5. Conclusions—Shifting Minds and Hearts for Thriving Communities
The current understanding of living systems suggests that all life progresses through
developmental change processes in which self-organization and emergence lead to increasing
complexity, diversity, capacity to support more life, and the potential to change to provide future
options across scales—in other words, increasing health, wellbeing, and thrivability [45,76–80,97].
Humans, as powerful agents in living systems, can recognize our interbeing with all life and align
our worldviews, thinking, and actions with living systems principles to catalyze thrivability, not just
sustainability, across scales. Regenerative sustainability, the next wave of sustainability, aims for just
that—thriving living systems from the scale of individuals to the entire earth system [4]. This aim is

inherently more inspiring and motivational than sustainability or systems maintenance, and it has
already resulted in more thriving systems and communities through decades of praxis and is worthy
of further investigation, application, and development.
Regenerative sustainability has been implemented in practice for over 60 years, with technologies
such as ecological design and planning, regenerative development, and regenerative design. These
proven techniques and methodologies could be implemented on larger scales through regenerative
community development [11], regenerative landscape development [34], and by leveraging existing
successful ecovillage development. Shifting from sustainable development goals to regenerative
development goals could also support a global shift from sustainable to thriving and inclusive
communities at all scales.
In a world in which the only constant is change, developing the capacities of living systems to
evolve in a developmental change process is the best strategy to manifest thrivability. When seen in
this way, development becomes a process for supporting the inherent self-organizing, life-enhancing,
health-inducing capacities of whole living systems [11]. These capacities hinge on integrating inner
and outer dimensions of sustainability, which are necessary for lasting transformational change toward
thrivability but have been neglected in sustainability science and practice [22,59]. Regenerative
processes are crucial since they shift thinking and acting to align with life’s principles and nurture
the deep care necessary to motivate and perpetuate regenerative actions, enabling self-organization
and emergence that lead to thriving communities [1,13]. In other words, regenerative sustainability
and development is a process of shifting minds and hearts to support thriving living systems
and communities.
To support a shift from sustainable to regenerative, several areas need to be expanded and
supported. Fundamentally, there is a need for more awareness of regenerative paradigms, principles,
and practices, supported by educational and training programs for practitioners, scientists, students,
and community members. More theoretical development, in conjunction with case studies, design
experiments, and adaptive design [100], is necessary to continue improving methodologies and
technologies. We need to learn when, why, and how to integrate mechanistic and holistic methods
and different ways of knowing and bridge disciplines, science, and practice. Information that could
better support specific locations and contexts with regenerative development processes should be
freely available [34]. There is a need for visionary leaders at all scales who understand and implement
systems thinking and develop other leaders [13,47]. As living systems are always changing in ways
that are never completely predictable or certain, we need to learn to be comfortable with uncertainty,
allow time to let regenerative processes unfold, and focus more on regenerative capacity development
rather than achieving fixed goals [11,18,42,47].
We need to learn much more about the connection between inner and outer sustainability and
how to develop inner sustainability. Although only touched on here, integrating spirituality into
sustainability is important and woefully understudied [1,53]. Spirituality may be defined as the
awareness of the interconnectedness of all life and the sense of meaning, purpose, and responsibility
that arises as a result. This, perhaps, is the deepest level of care and love, and it may motivate the
will and action needed to affect positive transformational change [53,101]. Indeed, spiritually based
cultures demonstrate high levels of inner and outer sustainability [53,102,103].
At its core, regenerative sustainability and development are processes of becoming more vital
and whole, in alignment with nature’s principles, living our interbeing with the rest of life so that
thrivability manifests. I suggest that regenerative sustainability offers our best hope, thus far, to make
the transformations needed to reverse the devastation, destruction, and degeneration that conventional
and contemporary sustainability have been unable to slow, halt, or reverse. It is time to shift our minds
and hearts, step into a new way of thinking, being, and feeling in the world so that we might cocreate
abundance and prosperity for all life. I invite sustainability scientists, scholars, practitioners, and
community members to be bold and brave enough to join others who are already on this path and
create the sea change necessary for true sustainability—regeneration and thrivability.

Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1. Ives, C.D.; Freeth, R.; Joern, F. Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio 2020, 49, 208–217.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. WWF. Living Planet Report 2016: Risk and Resilience in a New Era; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2016.
3. Lenton, T.M.; Rockström, J.; Gaffney, O.; Rahmstorf, S.; Richardson, K.; Steffen, W.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Climate
tipping points—Too risky to bet against. Nature 2019, 575, 592–595. [CrossRef]
4. Du Plessis, C. Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 7–22.
[CrossRef]
5. Kopnina, H. The victims of unsustainability: A challenge to sustainable development goals. Int. J. Sustain.
Dev. World 2015, 23, 113–121. [CrossRef]
6. Russell, J.M. Thrivability: Breaking Through to a World That Works; Triarchy Press: Devon, UK, 2013.
7. Benson, M.H.; Craig, R.K. The End of Sustainability. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 27, 777–782. [CrossRef]
8. Foster, J.B. After Sustainability: Denial, Hope, Retrieval, 1st ed.; Earthscan from Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2015.
9. Foster, J.B. Post-Sustainability: Tragedy and Transformation, 1st ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017.
10. González-Márquez, I.; Toledo, V.M. Sustainability science: A paradigm in crisis? Sustainability 2020, 12, 2802.
[CrossRef]
11. Gibbons, L.V. Moving beyond sustainability: A Regenerative Community Development Framework for
co-creating thriving living systems and its application. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 13, 20–52. [CrossRef]
12. Jørgensen, S.E.; Fath, B.D.; Nielsen, S.N.; Pulselli, F.M.; Fiscus, D.A.; Bastianoni, S. Flourishing Within Limits to
Growth: Following Nature’s Way; Earthscan: Florence, KY, USA, 2015.
13. Mang, P.; Haggard, B.; Regenesis. Regenerative Development and Design: A Framework for Evolving Sustainability;
John Wiley Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016.
14. Caradonna, J.L. Sustainability: A History; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
15. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 1987.
16. Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; vonWehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.;
Ives, C.D.; Jager, N.W.; et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 2017, 46, 30–39.
[CrossRef]
17. Du Plessis, C.; Brandon, P. An ecological paradigm as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the
built environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 53–61. [CrossRef]
18. Meadows, D. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System; The Sustainability Institute: Hartland, VT,
USA, 1999.
19. Miller, T.D.; Wiek, A.; Sarewitz, D.; Robinson, J.; Olsson, L.; Kriebel, D.; Loorbach, D. The future of
sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain. Sci. 2014, 9, 239–246. [CrossRef]
20. Wiek, A.; Ness, B.; Schweizer-Ries, P.; Brand, F.S.; Farioli, F. From complex systems analysis to transformational
change: A comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7 (Suppl. 1), 5–24.
[CrossRef]
21. Bastianoni, S.; Coscieme, L.; Caro, D.; Marchettini, N.; Pulselli, F.M. Theneedsofsustainability: Theoverarching
contribution of systems approach. Ecol. Ind. 2019, 100, 69–73. [CrossRef]
22. Fischer, J.; Dyball, R.; Fazey, I.; Gross, C.; Dovers, S.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Borden, R.J. Human behavior and
sustainability. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 153–160. [CrossRef]
23. Polimeni, J.M.; Polimeni, R.I. Jevons’ Paradox and the myth of technological liberation. Ecol. Complex. 2006,
3, 344–353. [CrossRef]
24. National Research Council, Policy Division, Board on Sustainable Development. Our Common Journey: A
Transition Toward Sustainability; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
25. Wiek, A. Solving Sustainability Problems; Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 2015.
26. Fang, X.; Zhou, B.; Tu, X.; Ma, Q.; Wu, J. “What kind of science is sustainability science?” An evidence-based
reexamination. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1478. [CrossRef]

27. Miller, T.D. Constructing sustainability science: Emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain. Sci.
2013, 8, 279–293. [CrossRef]
28. Kates, R.W. What Kind of Science is Sustainability Science? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 19449–19450.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Parris, T.M.; Kates, R.W. Characterizing a sustainability transition: Goals, targets, trends, and driving forces.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8068–8073. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Bettencourt, L.M.A.; Kaur, J. Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2011, 108, 19540–19545. [CrossRef]
31. Walker, B.; Gunderson, L.; Kinzig, A.; Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Schultz, L. A handful of heuristics and some
propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 13. [CrossRef]
32. Kay, J.J. An introduction to systems thinking. In The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and
Managing for Sustainability; Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J.J., Lister, N.M., Eds.; Columbia University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 3–13.
33. Clark, W.C.; Harley, A.G. Sustainability science: Towards a synthesis. Accepted pre-print. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resourc. 2020, 45. Available online: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42660129 (accessed
on 27 June 2020).
34. Gibbons, L.V.; Cloutier, S.A.; Coseo, P.J.; Barakat, A. Regenerative development as an integrative paradigm
and methodology for landscape sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1910. [CrossRef]
35. Sterman, J. Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems Science in a Fragmented Academy and Polarized
World. In Sustainability Science; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 21–58.
36. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (accessed
on 20 April 2020).
37. EcoDistricts. Available online: https://ecodistricts.org (accessed on 20 April 2020).
38. STAR Community Rating System, Version 2.0. Available online: http://www.starcommunities.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/STARV2_RatingSystem_Final1.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2020).
39. Kroll, C.; Warchold, A.; Pradhan, P. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning
trade-offs into synergies? Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 140. [CrossRef]
40. Stafford-Smith, M.; Griggs, D.; Gaffney, O.; Ullah, F.; Reyers, B.; Kanie, N.; Stigson, B.; Shrivastava, P.;
Leach, M.; O’Connell, D. Integration: The key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.
Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 911–919. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Lovins, H.L.; Wallins, S.; Wijkman, A.; Fullerton, J. A Finer Future: Creating an Economy in Service to Life; New
Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2018.
42. Wahl, D. Designing Regenerative Cultures; Triarchy Press: Axminster, UK, 2016.
43. Du Plessis, C.; Cole, R.J. Motivating change: Shifting the paradigm. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 436–449.
[CrossRef]
44. Hes, D.; Du Plessis, C. Designing for Hope: Pathways to Regenerative Sustainability; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2015.
45. Holling, C.S. From Complex Regions to Complex Worlds. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9. [CrossRef]
46. Mang, P.; Reed, B. Designing from place: A regenerative framework and methodology. Build. Res. Inf. 2012,
40, 23–38. [CrossRef]
47. Gibbons, L.V.; Pearthree, G.; Cloutier, S.A.; Ehlenz, M.M. The development, application, and refinement of a
Regenerative Development Evaluation Tool and indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 108, 105698. [CrossRef]
48. Hes, D.; Stephan, A.; Moosavi, S. Evaluating the practice and outcomes of applying regenerative development
to a large-scale project in Victoria, Australia. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 10, 460. [CrossRef]
49. Mang, P. (Regenesis Group, Santa Fe, NM, USA). Personal communication, 2016.
50. Murphy, T. (Regenesis Group, Pearce, AZ, USA). Personal communication, 2018.
51. Plaut, J.; Dunbar, D.; Gotthelf, H.; Hes, D. Regenerative development through LENSES with a case study of
Seacombe West. Environ. Des. Guide 2016, 11, 1–19.
52. Reed, B. (Regenesis Group, Boston, MA, USA). Personal communication, 2018.
53. Berejnoi Bejarano, E.; Rodriguez, N.; Gibbons, L.; Sykes, C.; Morrison, B.A.; Tekola, S.; Cloutier, S. Integrating
inner and external dimensions for holistic sustainability. In Intellectual, Scientific and Educational Influences in
Sustainability Research; Adapon Turvey, R., Kurissery, S., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
54. Macy, J.; Brown, M. Coming Back to Life; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2014.

55. Orr, D. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World; SUNY Press: Albany, NY,
USA, 1992.
56. Lipton, B.H. The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, and Miracles; Mountain of
Love/Elite Books: Santa Rosa, CA, USA, 2005.
57. Bohm, D. Wholeness and the Implicate Order; Routledge: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2002.
58. Selbie, J. The Physics of God: Unifying Quantum Physics, Consciousness, M-Theory, Heaven, Neuroscience, and
Transcendence; The Career Press, Inc.: Wayne, NJ, USA, 2018.
59. Wilber, K. The Collected Works of Ken Wilber; Shambhala: Boston, MA, USA, 2000.
60. Corral-Verdugo, V.; Frías-Armenta, M. The sustainability of positive environments. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
2016, 18, 965–984. [CrossRef]
61. Kantor, J.R. Interbehavioral Philosophy; Principia Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1981.
62. Reed, B. Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration. Build. Res. Inf. 2007, 35, 674–680. [CrossRef]
63. Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
64. Lyle, J.T. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development; John Wiley Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1994.
65. van der Ryn, S.; Cowan, S. Ecological Design, 10th Anniversary ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
66. McHarg, I.L. Design with Nature, 25th ed.; John Wiley Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992.
67. Gosnell, H.; Gill, N.; Voyer, M. Transformational adaptation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence
in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative agriculture. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 59, 101965. [CrossRef]
68. Fullerton, J. Regenerative Capitalism: How Universal Principles and Patterns Will Shape Our New Economy.
Available online: https://capitalinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-Regenerative-capitalism-4-
20-15-final.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2020).
69. Christian, D.L. Creating a Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional Communities; New
Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2003.
70. Litfin, K.T. Ecovillages: Lessons for Sustainable Community; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
71. Cole, R.J. Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 49–53. [CrossRef]
72. Robinson, J.; Cole, R. Theoretical underpinnings of regenerative sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 2015, 43,
133–143. [CrossRef]
73. Benne, B.; Mang, P. Working regeneratively across scales—Insights from nature applied to the built
environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 42–52. [CrossRef]
74. CLEAR (Center for Living Environments and Regeneration). LENSES Facilitator Program. Available online:
https://www.clearabundance.org/lenses (accessed on 20 May 2020).
75. Capra, F.; Luisi, P.L. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2014.
76. Wallner, H.P.; Naradoslawsky, M.; Moser, F. Islands of sustainability: A bottom-up approach towards
sustainable development. Environ. Plan. 1996, 28, 1763–1778. [CrossRef]
77. Opdam, P.; Nassauer, J.I.; Wang, Z.; Albert, C.; Bentrup, G.; Castella, J.C.; McAlpine, C.; Liu, J.; Sheppard, S.;
Swaffield, S. Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1439–1445. [CrossRef]
78. Gunderson, L.H.; Holling, C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems
(Synopsis); Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
79. Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes.
Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 999–1023. [CrossRef]
80. Bai, X.; Surveyer, A.; Elmqvist, T.; Gatzweiler, F.W.; Günerlap, B.; Parnell, S.; Prieur-Richard, A.; Shrivastava, P.;
Siri, J.G.; Stafford-Smith, M.; et al. Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 23, 69–78. [CrossRef]
81. van Schyndel Kasper, D. Redefining community in the ecovillage. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2008, 15, 12–24.
82. Ecovillage Initiative for Achieving the SDG’s. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
partnership/?p=11943 (accessed on 2 May 2020).
83. Kellert, S.R.; Heerwagen, J.H.; Mador, M.L. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing
Buildings to Life; John Wiley Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
84. International Living Future Institute. Available online: https://living-future.org/ (accessed on 2 May 2020).
85. Benyus, J.M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature; Harper Collins Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
86. Holmgren, D. Permaculture: Principles and Pathways beyond Sustainability; Holmgren Design Services: Victoria,
Australia, 2002.

87. Blay-Palmer, A.; Koch, M. Imagining sustainable food systems: The path to regenerative food systems.
In Imagining Sustainable Food Systems: Theory and Practice; Blay-Palmer, A., Ed.; Ashgate Publishing Company:
Burlington, VT, USA, 2010; pp. 223–246.
88. Dahlberg, K.A. A transition from agriculture to regenerative food systems. Futures 1994, 26, 170–179.
[CrossRef]
89. Francis, C.A.; Harwood, R.R. Enough Food: Achieving Food Security through Regenerative Agriculture; Rodale
Institute: Kutztown, PA, USA, 1985.
90. Soloviev, E.R.; Landus, G. Levels of Regenerative Agriculture. Available online: http://www.terra-genesis.
com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Levelsof-Regenerative-Agriculture-1.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2020).
91. Regenerative Agriculture. Available online: www.regenerativeagriculturedefinition.com (accessed on 28
April 2020).
92. McNeill, J.R.; Engelke, P. The Great Acceleration; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016.
93. Rau, T.J.; Koch-Gonzalez, J. Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy; Institute for Peaceable
Communities, Inc.: Amherst, MA, USA, 2018.
94. Holacarcy Constitution. Available online: Holacracy.org/constitution (accessed on 4 April 2020).
95. Boyle, M.; Kay, J.J. Tools for learning: Monitoring design and indicator development. In The Ecosystem
Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability; Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J.J., Lister, N.M.,
Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 289–306.
96. Holling, C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [CrossRef]
97. Wu, J.; Loucks, O.L. From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology.
Quart. Rev. Biol. 1995, 70, 439–466. [CrossRef]
98. Webb, R.; Bai, X.; Smith, M.S.; Costanza, R.; Griggs, D.; Moglia, M.; Neuman, M.; Newman, P.; Newton, P.;
Norman, B.; et al. Sustainable urban systems: Co-design and framing for transformation. Ambio 2019, 47,
57–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Koestler, A. Janus: A Summing Up; Hutchinson Press: London, UK, 1978.
100. Felson, A.J.; Bradford, M.A.; Terway, T.M. Promoting Earth Stewardship through urban design experiments.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 362–367. [CrossRef]
101. Ulluwishewa, R. Spirituality, sustainability and happiness: A quantum neuroscientific perspective.
In Spirituality and Sustainability; Dhiman, S., Marquet, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 155–168.
[CrossRef]
102. Berkes, F.; Dividson-Hunt, I. The cultural basis for an ecosystem approach: Sharing across systems
of knowledge. In The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability;
Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J.J., Lister, N.M., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008;
pp. 109–124.
103. Ulluwishewa, R. Indigenous knowledge for natural resource management: A comparative study of Māori in
New Zealand and Dusun in Brunei Darussalam. GeoJournal 2008, 73, 271–284. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

sustainability-12-05483-v2 (1).pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to sustainability-12-05483-v2 (1).pdf

Similar to sustainability-12-05483-v2 (1).pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

sustainability-12-05483-v2 (1).pdf